40 Hadith of Imam Nawawi – Episode 35
Date:
Channel: Navaid Aziz
Series: Navaid Aziz - 40 Hadith of Imam Al Nawawi
File Size: 27.51MB
AI Generated Transcript ©
Bismillah R Rahman r Rahim al hamdu Lillah Allahu enstein, who in istockphoto will now also be the human Cerulean fusina woman sejati armanino Maria de la dama de la de
da de la casa de la la la hora de de cada hoshana Mohammed Abdullah Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa ala alihi wa sahbihi wa seldom at the Sleeman kathira. But my dear brothers and sisters, Salaam Alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatu.
So before we get into the Hadith today, I want to pose a question to you guys. And I want you to imagine as if you guys are called these you guys are Muslim judges, okay. So you have two people that have come to present a case to you Person A and Person B. Okay, Person A, he has a one storey building, that he wants to build a second storey on top of, he says My family is getting too big, I need a second story to my house. And I would like permission to build that second story. Person B, he says I am neighbor to Person A. And I do not have a roof on top of my house, which is also one story. And I'm afraid that if he builds the second floor, he will be able to look into my house and
see the private things that go inside of my house. Now you as a judge need to make a decision. Should we allow this person to build that second storey? Or should we not allowed that person to build a second storey? And I would like you guys to think about it for a second and then give me your conclusions as to what you decide with your reasoning. Don't just give me a yes, we should allow it to No, we shouldn't allow it. I want to know why. Go ahead.
So you would allow it if he's willing to provide a roof for the neighbor.
Okay,
providing that you're taking that away, then you're going to cause harm and other issues. Kosmos conflict. So if he wants to do that, then he has to provide the roof
if he can afford it. Okay, fantastic. What other options? Do we have?
No window on the other side. Okay, good. Very creative thinking fantastic. Anyone else share their opinions? Is there anyone that believes that we should not allow this neighbor to build the second storey roof? Sorry, the second storey to his building? Anyone hold that opinion? You hold that opinion? Fantastic. Why?
Okay, so you say No, he can't build the second opinion bill, you believe the same thing.
Okay.
Right.
Okay, so you were like, let's just take it to the law, whatever the law says. I'm just gonna stick to that. Okay, fantastic. And the other options over here.
And the other options, go ahead.
So depending on where we are,
okay, well,
what what is your name? Okay, if you don't mind out If so, we're leaving, we're living in out of land right now, where you are the ruler. If you are the ruler, you get to make the decision. You consider we are in Canada, we have to go to the west The law says okay, country, right beside humanity ground that is something different and also the religion stops together. Okay, so
give me give me my rope that I make myself. Okay. So who? So who's going to build that roofer though? Is he responsible for that roof? Or is the person who's building the second storey responsible person is willing to if he's willing to post it, you can't force him to do that. And beside the country law says he has to obey the consumers. Okay, but remember, you are the country law, you get to decide that. Okay, good, inshallah head type. So this is going to be part of our discussion for tonight and we're going to approach this question in relationship to the various modalities and how they answer this question. When you have a conflict between a personal interest
and someone else's interest, which one takes precedence and how do you actually decide which one should be given precedence? So let's start off with the headache recovering today. And I'd be so sad when medic Lucy Nando de la de Allahu anhu. Another sutala is Allahu Allah cinema con, La da da da da da da da da da da da da da da Courtney was later Houma muslin. So on the authority of Abu Saeed Seidman Malika boosey Nana Qadri, Allah subhanho wa Taala be pleased with them. The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said there is not to be any causing of harm, nor is there to be any reciprocating of harm. There's not to be any causing of harm, nor is there to be any
reciprocating of harm about the narrator herbicidal hoody use learned his name already it's sad been Malik that is his name and he actually became renowned in
The Battle of a herd when his father was a part of the Battle of all heard that he wants to join the battle of war hurt, but the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam forbade him from doing so. He said, You're too young to join the battle of our heart when you grow older than you will be able to join his father passed away in the Battle of our heart. And after that, he started to participate in all of the battles after the Battle of art. Now one of the interesting things about Recital Hall Giuliana de la Hondo, he was from the scholars from amongst the Sahaba. He wasn't just the average Hubby, but he was from the scholars amongst the Sahaba. He was certainly one of the few
studies that narrated more than 1000 Hadith, he was one of the few hobbies that narrated more than 1000 Hadith, and he died in the year 64. After he Jolla he died in the year 64, after he dropped in Medina. So now starting off with what does this term mean? Da Da, da, da, da, da, da, da da comes from harm, right. So the discussion today is going to be revolving around harm. And the scholars approach this concept of understanding harm. In two three main discussions into three main discussions There are three main understandings. And this hadith in particular, it gives and shows a very, you know, significant point of how important it is to know the Arabic language of how
significant it is to know the Arabic language, because if one does not know the various scales that are used in the Arabic language, then understanding the Hadith like this becomes next to impossible because understanding a hadith like this becomes next to impossible. So the first understanding of this hadith is when the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam says, LA, da, da, da, da, da, da, that there is no harm, nor is there to be any other form of harm. They said, the Messenger of Allah Azza wa sallam is just using repetition over here, just to emphasize the point that there should be no harm done whatsoever, there should be no harm done whatsoever. Opinion number two, they
said that the first time of harm that the messenger of Lhasa Salaam is referring to is a harm that has no benefits to it whatsoever, a harm that has no benefit to it whatsoever. Whereas the second type of harm that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu wasallam is referring to, is the harm that does have benefits in it, and it is harming someone else. So there's a party that is benefiting and a party that is being harmed. And then the third opinion, is the opinion of a bit of the bar. And that is the opinion we're going to go with and the opinion that we actually translated is that the first type of harm is the harm that is initiated. So we are not allowed initiating harm towards anyone
else. nor are we allowed to reciprocating harm to anyone else. So for example, if someone harms us, we are not allowed to harm them back, we are not allowed to harm them back. And this is the third opinion that is stated, this is the third opinion that is stated. And that is the opinion that we're going to go with. Now this concept of understanding harms, in terms of that which has a benefit in it, and that which doesn't have a benefit in it. And this shows us the understanding of the study or the understanding of Islamic law, in terms of weighing benefits and harms. So it's very important to understand that in Islamic law, if Allah has made something permissible, he made it permissible,
because the benefits of that thing outweigh the harms. And if Allah subhanho wa Taala made something impermissible, then he made it impermissible because the harm in that thing is greater than the benefit, the harm in that thing is greater than the benefit. And this is the whole basis of the *tier. That if we understand the Sharia, it is purely based upon benefits and harms. And anything that is permissible is beneficial. Anything that is harmful is made prohibited. So now, what is something that we can think of where a person is harming another individual, but there's no benefit in it whatsoever, there's no benefit in it whatsoever. A lot of this discussion actually revolves
around marriage. So in Islam, the man has the right to divorce, the man has the right to divorce, and the woman has the right to request Cola, right, she has the right to request separation. So when it comes to divorce, a man can actually abuse the power of divorce. So for example, he will divorce his wife, and then he will wait till the very last day of the week. And on the very last day of the day, he tells his wife, you know what, I'm going to take you back at that time. And he does this again for another period, abusing his power waiting till the very last day of the day. And then he says, I take you back. This type of dialogue would be a type of luck, that is harmful, that there's
no benefit in it whatsoever. And the man is just doing this to show his wife that you know what I can do with you as I please and he gives you an abuse of power at that time. And this type of you know, treatment in Islam will be something that is completely impermissible something that is completely impermissible. A second example of this is the withholding of marital relations in marriage, right? So if either from the man or the woman, they intentionally withhold marital relations, then this is something that is considered impermissible, it actually has great ramifications, that if a man or a woman was to withhold marital relations for four months,
particularly for the man, some of the scholars of Islam consider this an act of divorce within of itself. That review it holds a marital relationship.
For more than four months, this is an act of divorce within of itself some six months, some said all the way up to two years, but they consider this something harmful. So this is a form of harm that has no benefit in it whatsoever, then the second type of harm is a harm that actually does have benefit in it a harm that actually does have benefit in it. And this is what we were looking at, in our scenario today, where an individual he wants to build a second story to his house, but this could cause an invasion of privacy of his neighbor, this would cause an invasion of privacy for his neighbor. So something that all of them are that he agreed upon, is that if the property is shared,
if the property is joint, or if it is public property, then no harm is allowed whatsoever, then no harm is allowed, whatsoever, the difference of opinion, it comes about when you have public when you have private property. So for example, I have my property and someone else has hid their property. Now at that time, it becomes a question of where is the lesser of the two evils where is the lesser of the two evils. And that is what the discussion is based upon. So let's start off with the Hanafi madhhab, the Hanafi method, actually, you said in this situation, that the Sharia will not, you know, cause conflict in private matters. So as long as the individual is doing something permissible
within the within of itself, then he is not responsible for the harm that is caused to another individual as a consequence of his action. So we understand this in its proper context. So they're not saying that you're allowed to harm someone, right? They're not saying that one neighbor is allowed to directly harm someone who has the intention to harm someone, then this is something that would not be allowed. But what they are saying is that if one neighbor is doing something permissible, that wouldn't have itself. And his intention is not to harm his neighbor, then the Sharia would not prevent the man from doing from doing that action. So coming back to our example
that we gave, Person A would be allowed to build his house. And he is allowed to build a window, he can build whatever he likes. And he is not responsible for building a roof for the his neighbor, he's not responsible building a roof for his neighbor. Now, in that situation, though, we have to understand that there's a level of accountability as well, that the hanafuda were very, very strict when it came to this matter, that he's not allowed to peek into his neighbor's house. And if he peeks into his neighbor's house, then he loses his privilege of having a second floor, he loses his privilege to having a second floor. But up until he does that, then we will not prevent him from
doing so we will not prevent him from doing so.
Then the other approach was the Maliki method. The other approach was the Maliki method. And their approach was that even if we can presume that the neighbor will be harmed, then we're not going to go forward with it, we're not we will not allow the neighbor to build his house, if we can presume that there's going to be some harm to the neighbor. So they would stipulate to the fact something like what our brother suggested that he either has to provide some sort of shelter for the top of his house, he has to provide a roof, or he would not be allowed to build a window. And this would be a stipulated condition and him building his house. Because if any form of harm is taking place, then
the principle in the city is that no harm is allowed whatsoever. And if this is considered a harm, then this is something that would not be allowed, this is something that would not be allowed altogether. Now something that is not taken into consideration in this discussion is how about if we're actually preventing sunlight from coming into his house at this time, right, you build a second storey, we're now preventing sunlight from entering his house, because you're like overshadowing his property, even the Sharia would take this as one of the harms that could take place. So this is something that would have to be addressed, that if sunlight is going to be
blocked, then we need to provide an alternate route for the sunlight or we need to provide in other way for the sunlight to come into the neighbor's house, because this is could be considered a benefit that would be lost through the building of property. Now, we look at the sheffey approach and the shafee approach. When you look at their approach to this, you find it to be a very practical approach, they said we will not give a generic or general ruling, but what we will say as long as two conditions are met, then he is allowed to build his second floor, as long as two conditions are met, he is allowed to build to the second floor condition number one is that this is actually a
customary norm amongst the people, meaning that if other people have second floors, then we will allow him to do this, we will allow him to do this, because this is considered from the customs of the people and we will not, you know divulge into this. And the second thing is that it can be a form of extravagance, it can be a form of extravagance. So if he's doing something intentionally to show off or intentionally to cause damage to his neighbor's property, then this is something that would not be allowed, then this is something that would not be allowed. And you see a lot of wisdom behind this statement of looking at the customary norms in terms of what is considered home.
And what is not considered harm? Because I want to give you an example. If we take this Hadeeth absolutely literally, that there's absolutely no room for harm whatsoever, I want you to think about rush hour, right rush hour traffic begins, there's a congestion on the highway. And this has clearly states that there's no harm to be done, meaning that during rush hour traffic, if you didn't take this idea, literally, you're not allowed entry into rush hour traffic, why? Because you're increasing the potential congestion and the traffic that is going to be there. So they said that if it is a customary harm, that the custom does allow, then we will allow that to take place. However,
if it is not customary, then we will not allow it to take place we will not allow to take place. So you see a great wisdom behind their first condition. And then the humbling method, they took a different approach as well. And in the humbling method, they said that as long as they can come to some sort of agreement, then we will allow it as long as they can come to some sort of agreement, then we will allow it. And I believe this is a very practical approach as well that rather than one individual making a decision for both parties, why don't we get both parties together, and allow them to come to a conclusion. And the ideal conclusion that the humble image that came with is what
one of the brothers mentioned, is that we will allow you to build a second floor, but on the condition that on the side that faces your neighbor, you do not have any windows on the side that faces your neighbor, you do not have any windows. And this I believe is a very practical approach as well, where the needs of both parties are met, where one person does not have to build his roof, nor does he fear that you know someone will be able to spy into his private life, nor do we fear that anyone will be able to interfere into his private life. Now this in summary is just a general discussion of how the scholars of Islam approach this hadith. Now why this hadith is so significant,
because as you guys probably saw in the email that was sent out, this hadith wouldn't have itself it builds one of the legal Maxim's in Islam. What is the legal Maxim, a legal maximum in Islam is a principle that is found reoccurring throughout the *tier. Meaning for example, if you were to look at the books of fic, from beginning to end, you would find principles in sight that are so general. And so you know,
needed that they repeat themselves over and over again. And the scholars of Islam, they said that there are five principles on which all the Sharia is built, there are five principles in which all of the Sharia is built. And those five principles, one of them is this principle over here. So let's take what those five principles are. And this is something we've studied in the past. Who remembers the Delta PL, Cobra, when we talked about the five major Islamic legal principles that all the city has built upon? Who remembers one of them? Go ahead.
Hi, number one, either Mahatma that the cultural norms take precedence. So let's find out what the other he gives us commandment in the Quran in the way we should treat our spouses. Why should ohana build models that treat them with love. And these are the good customary norms that we should interact with one another with so whatever good culture and customs are out there, we should embrace those good cultures and customs and treat the people accordingly and treat the people accordingly. Number two, go ahead.
Fantastic. So the very first tip from Amanda no is for the Hadith. We talked about the importance of intention. And we build a principle from that Hadith are no more Bhima Casa de that matters will be judged based upon the intentions behind them matters will be judged based upon the intentions behind them. And this takes us back to the opinion of the hanafuda. They said that if he is intentionally trying to harm his neighbor, then we wouldn't allow it and it shows us the power of intention. So that was Principle number two, who can use Principle number three.
Anyone remember? Principle number three, go ahead.
And Masha cottage libo tayseer that hardship brings about ease. So anytime there's any form of difficulty that is faced in life, then the Sharia will come to facilitate that ease that Sharia will come to facilitate that ease. And we see this in various aspects of life. The person who's sick, he's allowed to pray while sitting down, he's allowed to combine his prayers. The person who's traveling is allowed to make up his face after Ramadan is allowed to shorten his prayers. He's allowed to combine his prayers. So anytime there's any form of difficulty, then the Sharia will bring about an ease in that situation. That's number three was number four.
The head
alakina used to be shocked that certainty is not removed by doubt. So in our day to day interactions, we build certainty in certain matters. And those certainties will remain certain until another certainty is brought out to cancel it
See you made What do you feel some rumbling in your stomach? You're like, Did I break my window? Did I not break my window until you're certain that there was a sound or until you're certain that there was a smell you will do is still intact you will do is still intact, so that certainty is not removed by doubt. Now what is Principle number five? Fantastic Alhamdulillah I was waiting for that. Principle number five is this very Hadith, where the actual principle is a doctrinal user that all harm is to be removed, all harm is to be removed. Now,
this, you know, a philosophical question comes into play. And when you study the evolution of work, and the evolution of Akita, this is like one of the sections where interrupts where a group of a school of thought came into play, called the School of the martyrs, ILA, the school of the Mattila. And they came, they brought their philosophical ideas with their Akita into the chapters of the book, and that is, would Allah subhanho wa Taala legislate something that is harmful? Would Allah subhanaw taala legislate something that is harmful? Now, from the perspective of the sooner we would say that one of two things will happen, that there are certain things that do have harm in them, but
the greater the benefit in them is greater than the harm and that is why Allah subhanho wa Taala legislated them, and that is why Allah subhanaw taala legislated them. Or number two, we say that there are certain things that Allah legislated that are harmful, and it is possible that their harm is greater than their benefit. However, this is an exemption from the rule that Allah subhanho wa Taala himself brings about that Allah subhanho wa Taala himself brings about, and those are the two schools of thought within the Sunnah, in approaching matters that have harm in them. So for example, when you study laws of retribution, right, someone harms you, but someone gives you bodily harm, a
judge will make a decision that may allow bodily harm to be reciprocated. At that time, you would say this is a form of harm. And this hadith clearly states that no harm is to be done, then the response to this is that either the shady approach this from a manner that says the harm is not as great as the benefit that is in it, or it is a type of harm that Allah subhanaw taala himself exempted from this general principle that Allah subhanaw taala himself exempted from this general principle. And Allah subhanaw taala knows best, but the opinion that seems closer to the truth within these two opinions from from amongst after the center is the first one, that whatever Allah
subhanho wa Taala legislated, then the the benefit in it will always be greater than the harm, the benefit in it will always be greater than the harm. And even in those situations, when you look at, you know, for those punishments and retribution punishments, this is to prevent the greater harm from taking place, that when an individual, you know, sees someone whose hand has been decapitated, this inspires fear into the person that you know what this is why stealing is how long this is a consequence of stealing, and it prevents stealing from taking place. And this is something that you will see in amongst the lens of the Muslims have implemented these laws. And we're not saying that,
you know, these laws are implemented perfectly. But in those situations, you see, crime rates are much, much less. And that is one of the playing factors of that one of them is the conscious of Allah subhanaw taala, that people are naturally more God fearing of Allah subhanho wa Taala. And the second element of it is the severity of the punishment, the severity of the punishment, and that is something that inspires fear into the people as well to refrain from committing those crimes. So now, let us get into
subsections of this principle subsections of this principle, into by subsections of these principles, we said that each of these five principles will have subsections to them, that they are considered truths, but they're not considered absolute truths. So these five principles that we shared with you acquired for PL, Cobra, these are absolute truths, there are law from the spectrum of Islam, regardless of method, everyone agreed upon them, then we have a second category that are sub sections, and the sub sections are applicable only to that particular category. So right now our topic of discussion is harm. So in the chapter of harm, the very first rule that you will have,
there's to be no harm norther reciprocation of harm. So this is a very hadith of itself, that when it comes to harm, you're not allowed initiating harm, nor are you allowed the reciprocation of harm. How does this come become practical? So in terms of initiating harm, we're not allowed to harm other people, we're not allowed to harm the environment, we're not allowed to, you know, harm the animals, this is something that cannot be done. And at the same time, if harm is being done to you, are we required to defend ourselves? And the answer is, yes. The Sharia does require that you defend yourself. You're not allowed to say, you know, what, keep on beating me up because I'm going to keep
getting a certain degree of judgment, right, like certain people over here, right? You can't let that happen. You need to defend yourself. You need to stand up for yourself. This is what the *tier requires. You have to do.
Defend yourself. So even the reciprocation of harm is not allowed to be done in both circumstances. So this is one of the subsections. Now, let us give us a more practical example. We have two brothers muneeb and the Jeep, okay Moneyball is a plot of land in the Jeep is renting that plot of land from Munich, and Najib is a former. And this year when he is renting out a property from Munich, the harvest is extremely late. So for example, the harvest is supposed to be ready by October time, but for some reason, that doesn't get ready until November time, but in the jeebs agreement with muneeb is only till October. Now in the GP put in all this hard work in planting the
seeds of aggregating the land of watering the land, giving it to the the vitamins and nutrients it needs, preventing it from bugs and insects. And when he comes along and says, Look in the deep in our contract was only till October, whatever fruit comes out of it now is all mine. What decision do we make at that time, the sherea requires that muneeb continues to rent the land until the harvest is over for the same price. So the Jeep cannot say, you know what, it's my property and I don't have to pay you anything for it. And at the same time, muneeb cannot say that this is my property now. And everything that goes on it is mine because our contract is over. But rather from an Islamic
perspective, the city requires that the same rate to be applied to the Jeep, and whatever goes on that land belongs to in the jeep. So this is at all an example of all harm is to be removed.
A second example of this is let's take another example of such as then herself, okay. suggests is a baker. It's a good example. It's not a bad example. Okay. It's a good example.
So jive is a baker. Okay. And Hassan wants to buy some pies from him. Okay, because I was like, yeah, you know, I just got married Alhamdulillah I want to do something nice for my wife. Let me buy her some pies. She makes an agreement with suggest that you know what, I will buy three chocolate pies from you. They agree we're going to meet for salata, Leisha, inside of the masjid. And then you know what suggests he sends a text Mr. Hassan says Look, I'm really sorry, I took the wrong bus.
I've ended up in Red Deer somehow, you know what, you know, I'm really really sorry. So, now what is the shift here?
What is the Shelia required the situation? What does the Sharia require the situation is this console have to live up to his word and buy these pies from Sajad now, even though suggests has completely gone missing or what is the *tier require? In this situation, if it is a perishable item, then the right belongs to salt. If it is a perishable item, the right belongs to salt. Because we perishable items, there's a limited amount of time, there's an expiry date, things can go bad. He had a deadline that you know he's supposed to present, you know, dessert to his wife tonight. In this situation, the salt would be allowed an exit from the contract he would be allowed an exit from
the contract. Whereas let us just say it was a non perishable item. So for example, somebody selling canned goods at that time, right? He's selling creamed corn. So even in this situation, even though he saw us the judge got lost and you know, he's coming, you're not fudging time. Now, this all is still bound by his verbal agreement, that he has to buy that he has to buy it because the contract was already set because the contract was already set, right. So this is another example of how the harm would be removed.
A second subcategory of this principle, harm is to be prevented from appearing as much as possible harm is to be prevented from appearing as much as possible. So for example, someone knows that a harm is about to come about it is upon the individual to anticipate that harm. And this is such a very wise principle that when you when you think about it, that as Muslims, you know, we're meant to be people that anticipate what are the possible consequences of taking place, right. So a person is about to do an action, you need to anticipate the possible consequences of that action. And then in that situation, you will want to prevent the harm as much as possible. You want to prevent the harm
as much as possible. So what could be like a practical example of this? Your wife is cooking some heavy induced onion and garlic foods right? It not only is it going to smell the house from like a mile away you can smell the food cooking. Now your jacket is inside the house. And you know you're going to be wearing this jacket to the masjid you know you're going to be wearing this jacket to the masjid. So what does the city require over here, the Sharia would require that either you don't wear this jacket to the mustard or it would require you put it in place that that smell will not come into the jacket itself so that when you come into the machine, the machine does not start smelling
like onion and garlic. The machine does not start smelling like onion and garlic and this is based upon you know the headset
of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam that anyone that eats onion and garlic should not come to the masjid. Anyone that eats onion and garlic should not come to the masjid and is considered a harm. So we want to anticipate the possible harms that can take place and then try to prevent those harms, to the best of our ability prevent those harms, to the best of our ability.
Number three, harm is not to be removed by similar harm harm is not to be removed by a similar harm. So if someone is doing harm to you, you cannot naturally say, you know what, let me do a harm to them so that I can remove their harm. And you know, an example of something like this is you have two people that are starving. You have two people that are starving. Who should I pick on now? Let's pick on Hamza and Are you okay? Hamza? And Hamza did you go for Hajj this year? You go for Hajj this year. Okay.
So Hamza SRU by natural law, they went for Hajj this year, Mashallah. And I think you guys were roommates as well. Right? You guys. Okay, so this makes it even more interesting. So it's, you know, like the the 11th day of Hajj or the 11th day of the hijab, there in Munna. And for some reason or another, they haven't been fed the whole time, okay? And you've had some food with him. Nasrullah is extremely hungry and starving. Okay. now in this situation, you've had enough food for him to survive, but not enough to share with Nasrallah but not enough to share with natural law. So what he said is, so what natural law thinks to himself, you know what, let me take this food for myself, you
will, you know, who cares about you?
And that's not the case. Both of them are fantastic brothers. Mashallah. So let's take some food. And you you know, in LA or in LA,
that's the end of the story, right? is nonetheless action justified over here. And obviously, clearly not, that his concept of saving his own life at the expense of causing harm to someone else's, would not be valid would not be valid. So when the person is struck by poverty, he's not allowed stealing someone else's property, if it will cause a similar harm to him, if it will cause a similar harm to him. Now, let's look at another scenario. You he has two cubs, okay. And natural law, he has zero same situation starving, nonetheless says, You know what, let me ask you, if I can have some of the kebabs. So we ask you, can you have some of the kebabs, and you'll be like, Look,
man, you know, I haven't eaten for three days, I'm really hungry. And who knows what's going to happen in the future? I'd like to save, you know, one of my kebabs at least. So now, you're not sharing his kebabs anymore. And that's all he knows, if he doesn't eat, he's going to die. So he says, You know what, let me steal one of Europe's kebabs to survive. And he steals one of the herbs kebabs to survive, is what he did correct or incorrect. And the eyes of the *tier This is something that would be disputed. But it is something that the Sharia would not require any punishment for the sort of law. So they will dispute you know, is it sinful? Is it non sinful, no
degree of sin, that's all open for dispute. But what they would agree upon is that in this situation, keeping that sort of law alive, is the greater benefit given us realize the greater benefit as opposed to the harm that it is achieved to a YouTube due to him you know, not having that extra kebab anymore due to him not having that extra compartment.
And you know, these are actually practical scenarios. Like Subhan Allah Haji is such an experience and a half that I remember, in my own experience, when I went for Hajj, you know, we were this group from Egypt. And generally Mashallah gyptians very generous, very hospitable people. But when it came to hunch, for some reason, when it came to like buffet time that the everything served in the buffet, if you are not like on the first 10 people in the buffet, you weren't getting any food. So they would stock up all that food, and I stood away. And literally, we're in certain times and situations, we'd find over other people's stashes are just to get that food just to get that foods
upon law. So that's an example of a harm cannot be removed by an equal harm harm cannot be removed by an equal harm. This which brings us to Principle number five is that a greater harm is allowed to be removed by a lesser harm, a greater harm is allowed to be removed by a lesser harm. So we have no Mashallah kabara Cola, quite a few rich people, okay. Calgary, he gets hit by family gets hit by drought, people don't have food anymore, and they run out of wealth. so in this situation, if you have a Muslim ruler, that Muslim ruler is allowed to dictate, I will take the surplus money from the rich people, so that I can buy the poor people food, I can take the surplus money from the rich
people to buy the poor people food at this time. so in this situation, the lesser harm is taking the surplus money, the greater harm is the people dying. so in this situation, the lesser harm will take
precedence over the greater harm right. Similar like to the example we gave of the two kebabs similar that we give to the example of the two kebabs.
Now, the next principle is if one has no other options, he should take the lesser of the two evils. If one has no other options, he has to take the lesser of the two evils. Let's look at this from a doctor's perspective. There is a woman that's pregnant, and in her labor, she passes away in her labor, she passes away. And this doctor, he knows that the body of the deceased, you're not allowed to desecrate it, you're not allowed to open it up without permission, or without just cause. However, he knows at the same time, that if he opens up this woman's body, that he could he has a very high chance of saving the baby that is inside, he has a very high chance of saving the baby
that is inside. So based upon this, the doctor should know that choosing the lesser of the two evils is you know saving the baby's life, as opposed to the death of the law of impermissibility and desecrating the deceased body, right, so doctor has to choose the lesser of the two evils.
The next principle, the prince, the presence of a particular harm is accepted toward of a general harm. What this means is, if there's a conflict between an individual harm and the harm of the public, then we will allow the harm to an individual to ward off the harm of the public, we will allow the harm of an individual to ward off the harm of a republic. An example of this is you have a very good businessman. Let's go back to sajha over here, okay, let's say something good about him inshallah. So john is a very intelligent businessman, okay. And he has a monopoly and all of Calgary that he owns, you know, all of the towers in all of Calgary, okay. And people need their milk for
their babies, they need their milk for their cereal, they need their milk for a wide variety of things. So that says, You know what, I just bought out the last my last opponent, I have a monopoly. Now in Calgary, let me raise the prices by like 100%. So you want to buy one liter of milk from Sudan, you got to dish out the dough, he's talking about like $7 a liter. Now, that's what you have to pay for milk from Sajad. The ruler comes in and says, Look Sajad, as great of a businessman as you are, this is something that's harming the people, babies will not get their milk, you know, people cannot have their cereal in the morning. This is a great, you know, facade that that's being
spread, you have to bring the prices back to the normal prices, you have to bring the prices back to the normal prices. And this is when the government would interject into the economy and stipulate in a particular price. Even though there's an account, even though there's a monopoly in that situation. So that lesser harm, or sorry, that harm of where one person is being harmed, which is suggested in this situation, that would be allowed, so that everyone else can benefit so that everyone else can benefit. Let us take the last principle that comes under this. And that is preventing evil takes precedence over bringing about good preventing evil takes precedence over
bringing about good. And I want you guys to think an example of this, that you have a certain situation where there is going to be harm, and there's going to be good and good can be brought about from that evil taking place. Will the ends justify the means in this situation? Can a person do some sort of harm to bring about some good, and we want them to think of a practical example for this. Can you think of an example where some harm would be done to bring about some good go ahead?
stealing money from someone else who donated? So give me give me a more clearer picture of what you mean.
Okay,
okay.
Okay. Okay.
Okay, so you become like Robin Hood, basically, that's what you're looking at? No, this would not be valid. This is not be valid in Islam guys.
has a
musical example. Okay. And you want to stop the music.
You speak. If you tell the people to stop? Yes, maybe two people agree with you. But 20 people look at the negative side. So it's preferable you let the negative
evil that can happen.
That would fall under a different principle. This is a principle of where that harm it can bring about good, right. And what we're trying to prove in this principle is that we're not allowed to justify the ends by the means over here, that the harm that is taking place directly through the action will not justify the end cost will not justify the end costs. There's actually a verse in
The Koran that discusses this, but I want something else from the people once had their hands up. Other people had their hands up.
What happened? There was like another person, it was withdrawn.
Okay, okay, that seems like a pretty good example. So the the principle in Arabic is not old enough Siddha Olam, angelical Muslim, that the prevention of evil takes precedence over bring about of God. So the example of the hand over here, or you know, even like a finger, so the harm in this is that if we don't stop it, then in this situation, it could infect the whole body and the person could die, right? And then over here, the good in it is that the person will actually come about, but does this apply to our principle? This the harm bring about good
Mercer, the older man john Bell, Mashallah ha, the prevention of evil gives praise given precedence, to the good. So the good over here is actually the quality of life, right? There's not the saving of the life is the quality of life. and in this situation, the prevention of evil, the spreading of the disease will take precedence over someone having the quality of life so from that aspect, yes, it's very valid. So preserving the prevention of spread of disease will take precedence over you know, the quality of life that one would retain, if he had like all of his fingers. So that could be like a possible example of it. So that is the the last principle that is mentioned. Now in terms of the
verse that is mentioned over here, in certain Anam Allah subhanaw taala. He says, and insulted not those whom they disbelievers worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah subhanaw taala wrongfully without knowledge. So when when a person is in a state of conflict with the the disbelievers, you're not allowed to insult the deities of the worship, even though you know, it may give you like, moral superiority, just because in that situation, they would insult Allah subhanho wa Taala back. And that harm that is achieved is not equivalent to the greater good that comes out of it. And this is the example that is mentioned in the book. This is an example that is mentioned in the book. There's
another example. And I believe this is the more practical example, that we have a poor economy, a very poor government. So the government says, You know what, let the government take the responsibility of selling drugs, let the government take responsibility of selling drugs, because there's so much money that can be made out of it, people are doing it anyways, let the government take control of it. So from an Islamic perspective, that wouldn't be allowed from an Islamic perspective, that wouldn't be allowed. Because in order to attain this good, you need to go through the harm of you know, selling drugs to people. And this is actually a very practical debate when
they talk about the legalization of marijuana. And you know, the legalization of tobacco, legalization of alcohol, all of this, it has financial interests at the end of it, right? People are making money out of it. And that's why these things are allowed. And when you actually look at the laws, they're so ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous, that they will show you the most provocative ads for alcohol. Like people having a good time, it seems like they're like in general on this earth, and everything is amazing. And at the end of the day, please drink responsibly. And so ludicrous panela and this is something like you know, if you have a little bit of it, you're not going to want
to stop, you want to continue to get your your quote unquote, bonus, even higher, right? And then they put a disclaimer, drink responsibly. And this shows you the, you know, the the lack of ethics, that takes place in economies just due to financial interests. So from a Sharia perspective, these type of acts would not be justified, because hey, I can earn money out of this. Right? On a more practical example, on the board, sorry, I'm on a personal personal level, you're like, you know, what, I'm allowed to receive interest from the bank, because banks are evil corporations, and any money that I can get out of them, you know, something good for me, right. So, this type of
justification will not be valid, right? The ends does not justify the means. And the good that is attained, cannot come at the consequence of the evil, the good that comes out of it cannot come at the consequence of the evil. So this is just a brief discussion on legal Maxim's in Islam and how Islam approaches the concept of harm and how, you know, we need to look at, you know, the type of harm the level of harm, who is being affected by it, is it a general harm? Is it a specific harm, and all of these things are taken into consideration when legal rulings are given. And this shows you the depth of knowledge that a person is required to have, and the type of insight he is required
to have into the state of the questioner, as well as the state of community and society. When someone answers a question. Then when it comes to questions, in fact, there are no law they're not just black and white, right? The theory is black and white, but in terms of
practicality and its application, it does require deep insight. And I hope that through this Hadith, and through our discussion today, you're able to see that deep insight. inshallah the next Hadith we'll be covering is Hadith number 33. And Hadith number 33, is about how does a judge decide whom the burden of proof is upon write to people come with a complaint? Who has the burden of proof who has to prove innocence? Who has to prove the guilt? What do you do in that situation? Who and who's complaining as well. And this is, this is actually a very special headache for me. It's a cousin still here, she has is not here. So this was the first time I came to Calgary in 2009. And we had a
moment, and I can't remember who the other individual was. But we were discussing this hadith in class I was teaching the class will normally be my notes for the Hadith. And I created a fake fight inside of the class. You remember the fake Wait, it was on this hadith that one of the brothers had an iPod? And he's like, no, this iPod is mine. This iPod is mine, and actually start a fake fistfight between them. So there's no real for anyone if it was fake. And it so happened that just before I started teach that class, she cousin walks into the classroom, and he sits behind Ahmed and the other brother, do you know who the other brothers?
They're both Ahmed Subhana. Allah. Okay. So she hasn't came and he, you know, sat down besides. And I remember I'm like, oh, man, what do I do? I have this whole thing set up. If I don't go through, it takes away the enjoyment from the class and the learning experience. But at the same time she has is gonna be like, what is this guy doing to the people in Calgary? You know, two good brothers are fighting or an iPad right now. So I decided to continue with it anyways, and heinola usually, I've seen Justin's facial expression at that time, he could not believe that these two brothers were fighting over an iPad. And then, you know, when I told him to stop the fight, and they both stopped,
no, people were surprised, and was really messed up was I didn't anticipate this at all. But certain sisters started crying. They're like, Why are the brothers fighting?
So that was a definite learning experience and a half, I promise you, we will not be having any fake fights next week when you take this class. But we will be discussing, you know, how does Islam address the burden of proof? Who has the burden of proof actually upon? And then if you don't have the burden of proof, what are you required to do in that situation? So that is heading number 33. We'll be covering it on Wednesday nights, once a night Holocaust is are at the eighth and eighth location. Right after selected a shot a shot there is at 730. And we're usually done by like nine o'clock in Sharla. On Wednesday nights, Friday nights holidays, they will be continuing after a show
as well. It's over here is at eight o'clock. And Hanukkah usually will be done by like 930 ish, or so inshallah, Tada. We conclude with that with some Allahu cinematical and the Vienna Mohammed Ali Salim. I will open up the floor for questions and answers now.
Yeah.
Yeah. Yes.
Fantastic. So over here,
the concession was not that he was allowed to steal. The concession was in the fact that the HUD punishment will not be applied to him. That is where the concession was. And that was, again, looking at the general interests of the people in that situation. This person didn't steal out of greed, but he's still out of necessity. And over here, you know, the same thing would apply that this bread that is taken over here it is upon the people that are rich to donate it, that is the good thing to do. However, if the rich people refuse to donate in that situation, then over here, if a poor person steals, we would say that the Sharia would not hold him accountable for that, because
he's doing it for the sake of survival. He's doing it for the sake of survival.
No, you cannot say that we can't say that the Sharia has changed. We will just say that the punishment is not applied due to public necessity. That's what we would say. And I know that this incident is often used when they talk about reform of the city are there like certain aspects of the city, I can be negated due to, you know, the states of certain people. But that's not actually what happened. The Sharia was not changed. Law was not changed, but rather due to the necessity that was required at that time. The ease that was brought about was just equivalent to that necessity.
In that situation, yeah.
Right. That is very possible. Yes. Well, my brother in the back, go ahead.
Yes.
Fantastic. So when we were talking about the concept of harm in Islam, that when we talk about legislation of Allah subhanho wa Taala
We said pertaining to those verses over there, that those verses do not apply to this due to one of two reasons, either number one, that the benefit is actually greater than the harm in this situation, or number two is that these are exceptions to the rule. These are exceptions to the rule. And we said that the first opinion takes precedence, that in that situation, the benefit is greater than the harm. So over here, a person is not allowed to go to another person and say, You know what, you
broke my finger, I'm allowed to break your finger. That's not what would take place. But what would take place is that the person that is harmed is taken to the Muslim judge, and the Muslim judge would make the ruling at that time. And then Islam gave a ruling that, you know, there's an element of equality, that whatever you have lost, you're allowed to take back. Not more than that, and not more than that. And they say that when it comes to wealth, then that is something that is replaceable. But when it comes to like human body parts, these are things that can't be replaced, right. And that is why retribution was allowed in those matters. Whereas if someone stole from you,
you're not allowed stealing back from them. Right. So that is why the exception was made in that suit in that situation. Allahu Tanana. Go ahead.
Yeah.
Yes. So
that's like a completely different discussion in terms of, you know, what would happen in that situation? The objective of that question was just to show how the different schools of thought would approach this question, right, just to show the approach, what is the correct answer? inshallah, when you become a judge, you can tell us and let us know inshallah? Go ahead.
Yes,
yes.
In what the Sharia would say on this is that the general rule is that you're not allowed invading people's public private property, you're not allowed doing that. and in this situation, I would say, try many, many other options first, number one, try to come early for Joomla. If you can, if you're unable to come early for Joomla, then go to a machine that has an open parking lot. If you're unable to go to a machine that has an open parking lot, take public transport, you're unable to take public transport, take a taxi, you can take a taxi carpool, right, we would say take all of these other avenues first, and then in that situation, where you have to choose between parking on someone
else's property, or double parking your car and getting a ticket, it is better for you to get a ticket than to invade someone else's private property. Because you may think that this is an individual harm, you may think I'm only harming one person. But the reality of the situation is that the one person that does this, there are 100 other Muslims thinking the exact same way. So it ruins the reputation of all of the Muslims, that Muslims don't know how to park their terrible, you know, in this situation, and that is why I would suggest that it's better just to get a ticket, that's better for the individual than to ruin the and tarnish the name of all the Muslims in that area by
doing this.
Let's imagine this music lives, let's not mention specific names.
In scenario what is happening, so people are discussing the office, right?
Right.
What do you see, still getting better, of course, 110%. But people are saying.
So the time will come.
And that time is already here. That time is already here. And that's what I'm saying is that we need? We need to look at those other avenues that you know, two Muslims work in the exact same workplace, yet they both take their individual course to go to Juma. I cannot make sense of that. Why would you do that? Why are you taking up two parking spots instead of one? Right? You have an opportunity to take public transport. Yes, it will take you longer, but you avoid the hassle that is there. So Muslims need to explore all these other avenues. Before you know we start blaming, you know others. We need to look inside internally first law ahead.
Yeah.
No. So the general rule is that law is unanimous that all laws are meant to be applied to all people that there is no one that is exempt to the law. But the general rule is that what people do in their private spaces is up to them. So the Sharia would not interfere what is done in private spaces. So this applies to their private acts of worship, to their private lifestyles. Whatever they choose to do in the privacy of their own homes. The Sharia will not interfere with those matters. Unless penalty Allah knows best.
Okay, I said that was the last question but we'll take this as the last question. I'm assuming this one the sisters. Yeah, we always neglected the sisters unfortunately. So and
shala Let's try to answer this question. I said, I want to come. Is it permissible for me to attend the wedding of a Muslim friend who is marrying a non Muslim man? Why does this question keep repeating itself? No, I'm not kidding. Like, there was, like 200 years ago, I was asked this question, I got an email about this question this week.
And then it's the third time I'm being asked this.
And if I don't congratulate them, it feels very hostile. Is there a greater or lesser harm in attending the wedding of a of a Muslim Hindu marriage?
It's a very difficult situation to be in. And let's give context to this situation. From what I'm assuming is happening over here is that a sister gets older, she hits, you know, 2728 2930 years old. She's looking for marriage in the Muslim community. And she's unable to find a suitable husband, the men are like, you know, what we want someone younger, we want someone prettier. We want someone that you know, isn't working, we want someone with a whole bunch of different reasons. So this sister keeps getting turned down, keeps getting turned down. She's at work, she eventually falls in love with this other human being who happens to be a person of another faith. And you know
what she's like, you know what, in her mind, she has very limited knowledge. She's like, let me make this Hold on, let us get married. And you know, that's what we will end up doing. And this is from the scenario as I have understood it. Now in the situation, the Sharia is very black and white. Islamic law is very clear in this matter, that a woman is not allowed to marry a non Muslim man, a woman is not allowed to marry a non Muslim man, whereas the Muslim man he is allowed to marry a Christian or a Jew. Why the difference in the two, they say that the man is the head of the household, and will have an influence in that situation. So the man marrying a ketopia. It is hoped
that inshallah with his leadership with his righteousness, she will hopefully be guided to Islam, which will be better for her dunya and her Akela. Whereas in the opposite scenario, in the situation where a Muslim is marrying a non Muslim, Muslim woman is marrying a non Muslim man, in this situation, through the man's leadership and his influence, she's actually going to be misguided in our acula, perhaps, you know, in the dunya, there might be some benefit in it, but in the Acura is absolute loss, she would have lost her Acura altogether. And that is why the Shelia came to prevent those marriages. And that is just one of the reasons behind it. That is just one of the reasons
behind it. so in this situation, the Sharia is very explicit, those marriages are not allowed to take place. And in fact, when you look at it, there is a few couple of actions that the Sharia actually considered acts of disbelief. And this is actually one of those situations where a woman intentionally marries a non Muslim man and wants to get the kneecap done. Then the Obama said that the one that gets this done, and the one that actually does this could fall into disbelief, he could fall into disbelief, to show you the severity of this act, to show you the severity of this act. So now that you understand the severity of the Act, in the sight of the Sharia, then obviously the
better thing to do is to take a stance and not attend the wedding. Just to show that our pleasure is with the pleasure of Allah. Our displeasure is with the displeasure of Allah subhanaw taala. And we know that this is something that Allah subhana wa, tada wouldn't be pleased with. So that is why that stance should be very, very clear. So when it comes to that actual marriage, I would say it is better for you not to attend better for you not to attend, in terms of keeping ties of kinship, keeping ties of relationship, then I would say it is even more mandatory, that you keep ties a relationship with this people and try to guide them back to what is correct and try to guide them
back to Islam, because it is feared that such an individual would easily lose their faith would easily lose their faith. So don't attend the wedding. But keep ties of kinship and try to bring them back to the truth and try to educate them and let them know that what they're doing is actually wrong. And if you can actually prevent this from taking place, then I would say prevention of harm takes precedence in the situation. whatever needs to be done in terms of education, to prevent this from taking place should be done. And Allah Subhana Allah knows best and I pray that Allah subhana wa tada forgives us for our shortcomings and rectify the situation in our community. And the sisters
that are unable to get married that Allah subhanho wa Taala provides them a halal alternative. I mean sallallahu wasallam robotica Mohammed Wanda and he was happy with Allah Subhana Allah more behind the Akasha known as the hirokawa tubo ilec. I will see you guys on Wednesday night in sha Allah wa Salaam Alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh